The Impact of Performance Management - Research Paper Example

? The Impact of Performance Management The Impact of Performance Management Performance management refers to a business managementpractice, which consists of activities aimed at ensuring that management and company employees consistently attain organizational objectives via well-organized and valuable strategies. Organizations consider performance management as a critical process in business management because the practice focuses on organizational or departmental performance, procedures involved in the production of goods and other elements of the organization (Daniels, 1999). Performance management also refers to a sequence of steps through which businesses align their employees, resources and systems with organizational priorities, strategic goals and objectives. Essentially, performance management is the complex science, which guarantees the management of behaviors and results, which are principal elements of performance. Organizations initiate performance management through supposed strategic tactics directed at enhancing organizational effectiveness via the enhancement of managers’ and employees’ performances. This is through the enhancement of the capabilities of both teams and individuals. This paper will study the issue of performance management, discussing its negative effects. The appreciation of the adverse effects of performance management encourages organizations to learn from its experiences, enhance them and sustain employees’ interests in the reviews. Performance management exposes employees and managers to undue pressure, which ultimately results in poor levels of performance and dwindling organizational successfulness. Traditional points of view consider performance management on account of performance assessment systems having immense, positive effects on business performance. However, there is relatively little evidence to defend this hypothesis. There is a growing appreciation for the adverse consequences of performance management to both organizations and employees (Godener & Soderquist, 2004). One of the most prominent negative effects of performance management is the bureaucracy associated with the compilation of reports for regular assessments. The preparation of such reports takes at least two days, which is the normal quantity of time, invested from middle and senior managers for performance management purposes, in a month. The complexity of performance management is also a significant hurdle since it disconnects employees from the entire process of performance management. Measures such as composite measures and performance indexes, which managers use in performance management, may not be universally ideal. The negative impacts of performance management also include decreased departmental and organizational performance. The implementation of performance management has an adverse effect on the organization’s immediate performance, particularly with regard to employees’ performance. This situation emerges as a result of lack of proper training of employees and managers, especially in terms of formal change management. In addition, performance management results in diminished organizational performance when the review process fails to address the changes in the organization’s culture. Performance management demoralizes employees. This is because employees consider performance reviews as management-based tools used to get back at them, thereby, subjecting the employees to extreme levels of subjectivity. Performance management produces particularly adverse effects when the process fails to address employees’ fears and clarify the essence of the process and its benefits to employees. Furthermore, performance management results in low productivity due to inadequate management commitment to the process and a notable lack of consistency regarding performance management in different organizational departments. In addition, performance management, which is a two-way communication process, could degrade communication. When managers fail to appreciate that the process is a two-way communication procedure turning the review into a one-way disciplinary interrogation, the process will have adverse effects on the employee (Rigby, 2001). On the other hand, when the employee feels that such an interview aims at reminding him or her of things that went haywire, the review will ultimately have an adverse effect on the employee’s performance. Notably, there is a necessity to discover a suitable equilibrium between the provision of either positive or negative feedback in the performance management process. Managers should offer negative feedback in a positive manner. This ensures that the management’s focus appears to be on the improvement of the employee’s performance rather than telling the employee off for performing dismally. Therefore, the focus of performance management should either be on offering valuable guidance on ways of deterring the recurrence of the issue at hand or clarifying the requirements when the employee appears ignorant (Hillgren & Cheatham, 2000). Low levels of management commitment could have a negative impact on employee performance. Even when management spends immense quantities of time and effort on designing and implementing performance management processes, the practice could result in an adverse impact on performance on account of management’s commitment. The most critical element to the success of such a process is support and commitment of organization management. Company employees should feel management’s commitment to the entire process and that the process aims at enhancing employees’ performances (Martinez & Kennerley, 2010). This is particularly so when there are certain rewards available to employees, should they enhance their performance. Moreover, subjectivity in the course of performance management, especially with reference to managers, is a notable fatal element, which adversely affects employee, departmental and organizational performance. Subjective assessments negatively affect employees’ morale and subsequent performance. Appraisals should eliminate the element of subjectivity by making use of unique, measurable employee performance indicators, for instance, financial statistics to ascertain whether or not employees perform effectively. In essence, the “gut feeling” assessments are extremely subjective since the manager’s emotional state influences the outcome of the assessment. In order to eliminate subjectivity further, managers should implement 360 degrees turn in the appraisal process. This will allow diversity of input from employees regarding their performance while also providing objective and unprejudiced reflections. Performance management also suffers the negative effect of lacking rewards. Performance management does not prioritize rewarding of employees either positively or negatively. Employees undergoing the performance management process always wonder what rewards they will obtain from superior performance. Effective appraisals should, therefore, demonstrate to employees the benefits of evaluations either financially or through soft rewards such as nominations as employees of the month. Performance management underpins negative attitudes of both employees and managers. Notably, managers fear communicating the results of performance assessment with subordinates for fear of demoralizing employees. On their part, employees fail to understand the purpose of evaluation, especially by considering evaluations as personal assessments rather than output evaluations (Rigby, 2001). Performance management establishes misunderstandings between managers and their subordinates when employees consider appraisals as personal insults, thereby, ruining inter-organizational relations. Moreover, cultural barriers may enhance the confusion inherent in appraisal processes because different cultures consider different values in praising or corrections. In a study Martinez and Kennerley (2010) examined the effects of performance management in an energy supplying organization. The researchers noted that competitive pressures within the global business arena are pushing organizations to re-evaluate their operations so as to maintain high levels of competitiveness in the market. The researchers discovered that at least 44% of organizations continually lay emphasis on performance management as systems of reviewing organizational performance. However, the researchers pointed to the existing evidence confirming that performance management produces adverse effects on organizations, particularly in terms of performance. The researchers also undertook to determine viable measures to mitigate the adverse effects inherent in performance management. The study examined an organization involved in performance management, noting that performance management produces effects such as bureaucracy and subjectivism. According to the study, performance management refers to business-related processes, which managers utilize to assess and measure employees under them. According to Martinez and Kennerley (2010), different organizations make use of diverse performance management systems on the basis of the organizations’ philosophies and qualities. The authors noted that the tools assist businesses ascertain problematic areas in employees and guarantee that employees earn sufficient compensation. On the other hand, performance management tools point out issues that organizations need to realize. Notably, performance management uncovers distinctive limitations to the employee and organizational limitations. Most of the available assessments are naturally stringent reviews, which diminish the capacity of the reviews to only a number of qualities, which employees must possess. This makes employee appreciation to be relatively difficult for managers, particularly with regard to the appreciation of other employee characteristics pertinent to the realization of effective performance and overall organizational successfulness. This means that performance management may not leave any room for discussion or appreciation of employees’ emotional intelligence and relationships with other employees and supervisors. Moreover, performance management deters employers from appreciating unique attitudes, which managers may need to evaluate and discuss. Moreover, it is evident from the research that performance management influences employees and managers to concentrate on mere performance rather than effective performance. Most organizations make use of such assessments to make crucial decisions regarding employee remuneration, rewards and promotions. This makes the performance review process competitive, thereby, shifting the intended focus evaluation from the realization of effectiveness to fulfilling aspects they consider vital in the review. In essence, performance management shifts employees’ focus as employees concentrate on the fulfillment of certain aspects of the review. Employees also concentrate on enhancing their relationships with managers rather than focusing on performing their duties to help the entire organization. Managers may often revert into backstabbing by positively appraising employees with whom the managers have friendly relations (Rigby, 2001). Employees may be unable to deal with negative performance reviews both during and after the performance appraisal. Negative emotions diminish employee performance, thereby, adversely affecting the entire organization in terms of its effectiveness, performance and long term successfulness. The aggressive approaches inherent to performance management practices adversely affect social interrelations amongst employees, as well as between employees and managers. However, available literature points out that there is a distinct relationship between employee performance and positive pressure. As pressure on employees increases, such employees enter the areas of best performance. At this point, employees are able to focus on their tasks and perform effectively. On the other hand, when employees experience little pressure to perform crucial tasks, there are little or no incentives to push employees to focus their energy and attention on performing their tasks (Daniels, 1999). However, the pressure inherent in performance management is so much that it disturbs employee performance either in the short run or long term.   In conclusion, manager-administered appraisals are single-sided since they focus on the evaluations of managers, thereby, dismissing employees’ perspectives. Corporate performance reviews are obstacles to straight-talk relations and are prime causes of low employee morale. Even the knowledge, that managers intend to perform appraisals, damages day by day communications, as well as overall employee team work (Herman, 2007). Employees normally consider performance management as aimed at the preservation of manager’s authority, as well as power advantages. This intimidation is extremely unnecessary, although managers have power over employees with or without performance appraisals. This paper effectively conveys the adverse effects associated with performance management. The case indicated in this paper exemplifies the points made in the paper pointing to the negativity in which performance management exists. References Daniels, A. C. (1999). Bringing out the best in people (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Godener, A., & Soderquist, K. E. (2004). Use and impact of performance measurement results in R&D and NPD: An exploratory study. R & D Management, 34(2), 191-219. Herman, A. (2007). Performance management. New Jersey: Pearson Education Incorporation. Hillgren, J. S., & Cheatham, D. W. (2000). Understanding performance measures: An approach to linking rewards to the achievement of organizational objectives. Arizona: WorldatWork. Martinez, V., & Kennerley, M. (2010). Impact of performance measurement and management systems reviews: Evidence from an energy supplier. Journal of the Institute of Management Service, 54(3), 8-14. Rigby, D. (2001). Management tools and techniques: A survey. California Management Review, 43(2), 139-160. Read More